Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation is becoming more widely used as an alternative to open reimplantation. To date, no direct comparison to the open approach in a similar cohort exists. We review a single surgeon experience and compare the outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation and open ureteral reimplantation in children with vesicoureteral reflux.
We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 25 pediatric patients (mean age 69 months, range 3 to 144) who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation for unilateral or bilateral vesicoureteral reflux between February 2006 and December 2009. A total of 25 patients undergoing open cross-trigonal ureteral reimplantation (mean age 50 months, range 8 to 110) during the same period were used for comparison. All cases were performed by a single surgeon.
There were no conversions or intraoperative complications. There was no correlation between age or weight and operative time, length of stay or total analgesia used. Mean operative time was 12% longer in the robotic group vs controls (p < 0.05). Mean length of stay (33 vs 53 hours) and pain medication usage were significantly less in the robotic group (p < 0.001). Time to first oral intake was not significantly different. There were 3 episodes of transient urinary retention in the robotic group, all in patients undergoing bilateral reimplantation. The overall success rate, defined as no radiographic or clinical evidence of residual reflux, was 97% for robotic assisted laparoscopy after a mean followup of 16 months, compared to 100% for open reimplantation.
Robotic assisted laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation appears to be a safe and efficacious option for repair of vesicoureteral reflux. This early series shows success rates similar to the open approach. We observed decreased length of stay and use of postoperative narcotics. These findings may serve to justify further exploration of this technology and to provide data for design of a prospective trial, although the relative value of specific reductions in morbidity will need to be defined.
Written by:
Smith RP, Oliver JL, Peters CA. Are you the author?
Reference: J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1876-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.072
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 21421231
UroToday.com Pediatric Urology Section
